Some widgets have options that are only available when you get Core Membership.

We've split the page into zones!

Certain widgets can only be added to certain zones.

"Why," you ask? Because we want profile pages to have freedom of customization, but also to have some consistency. This way, when anyone visits a deviant, they know they can always find the art in the top left, and personal info in the top right.

Palaeophis as a filter feeder/planktivore. Palaeophis colossaeus was a gigantic sea snake estimated at up to 12.3 meters long, according to the latest studies. No skull is known so its diet is unknown. It is likely to have been a fish eater or even to have preyed on larger animals if it could expand its jaws like modern snakes. However, the fact that many animals reach huge size when they become filter feeders (such as whales, manta rays, basking, whale and megamouth sharks, maybe some giant cephalopods, etc) makes me imagine this. Inspired partly by today's Emydocephalus annulatus or "turtle-head sea snake" which feeds almost exclusively on fish eggs, which in turn has caused its dentition and venom glands to shrink as well as the potency of the venom to decrease. It is very unlikely that Palaeophis had venom, tho.

Palaeophis colossaeus was a gigantic sea serpent- no relation to today's sea snakes-, and one of the largest snakes ever to have lived. This doodle is inspired by a recent study that estimates their maximum length at 12.3 meters; their vertebrae are comparable in size to those of Gigantophis and only Titanoboa's are bigger. Unfortunately no skulls are found, only those of distant relatives; the study mentions that if Palaeophis colossaeus could expand its jaws like modern snakes, then any animal of its ecosystem may have been potential prey. Here it is eating a primitive cetacean because, snake eating a whale, I dunno, hard to resist

The trailer is out for Andy Serkis' "darker, grittier" version of The Jungle Book. I really love the original book as you all know (I even wrote my own jungle adventure trilogy heavily inspired by Kipling's novel), so of course I'm going to check any adaptation of it but... this looks weird, honestly.

The movie does look like it'll be referencing the original novel more, BUT there's one thing that bothers me and that's how weird all the animals look.

You'd expect them to look super realistic for a darker story, but instead they look more cartoonish than the ones from Disney's 2016 version. They also look oddly humanoid. For example, here's who I suppose is Akela, looking like an anthro character:

Compare to Disney's 2016 version:

I'm all for giving your characters a unique, distinct style but I fear the humanoid appearance of the characters will be too distracting; we all know what a wolf looks like after all. The 2016 Akela looks like a real wolf even though he speaks and emotes; the new one.... not so much.

Here's another example; Shere Khan.

(It looks even weirder in motion, especially the "how you've grown" scene. Like a sort of evil Tigger X Tai Lung from Kung Fu Panda). Again, the face is too humanoid, I feel.

Now, I'm probably biased here because I just love tigers and I believe a perfectly normal tiger can be really scary the way it is, no need to add anything. Take the CGI tiger from Life of Pi; it worked so well because it stuck to what a tiger looks and acts like; the face was a tiger's face, the expressions were a tiger's expressions, and the result was still scary when it needed to be because tigers ARE scary.

The 2016 version of Shere Khan was ok, although I feel he would've been scarier without the scarring and the bad eye. At times I felt like there was too much going on with his face.

Still, he looked a lot better and more tiger-like than the newer version. It is also proof that you can make a tiger speak and emote and still look like a tiger.

The biggest sin, for me, is when the filmmakers fail to make a CGI animal as scary as the real life counterpart. Here's a shot of Shere Khan pawing furiously at some fire (because you can´t have a Jungle Book adaptation without that happening ).

Again, the face of the tiger in the trailer looks all kinds of strange. Like a man wearing tiger makeup and prosthetic fangs. Or a transition frame from a man to tiger transformation sequence.

Notice how small the fangs are proportionally? Now compare to the real tiger who played Shere Khan in Stephen Sommer's 1994 live action version:

That's right; tigers have HUGE fangs! I just can´t understand why a filmmaker would choose to give his tiger smaller fangs than the real thing. And it's not only the tiger; Bagheera too has very small fangs in this trailer:

Compare to 2016 Bagheera:

Or a real panther for that matter:

I don´t have a fang fetish, I swear!!

I just think if you have a badass animal in your movie, like a panther or a tiger, the least you can do is make them look as scary as the real thing!

The other animals we don´t get much footage of but Baloo sort of looks like a werebear:

(still better than Beorn from the Hobbit movies, tho; that was dissapointing).

The monkeys look like absolutely no species of monkey ever, and some of them look like zombies. Or Gollum.

But at least Hathi looks good (if a little prehistoric, even mammoth-ish. Still, he's supposed to be the oldest, wisest animal in the Jungle, after Kaa, so ok I guess)

Speaking of Kaa, tho... I think she looks like an evil ninja turtle.

Compare to the 2016 version, which certainly did not look like an adult Indian python (and I'm not talking about just the size of it), but at least looked like a snake:

So yeah... I'm not sure about this movie. I think the animals are the most important thing in any Jungle Book adaptation, so the fact that they don´t look very good doesn´t bode well for this one. On the other hand, it may be that we see Mowgli leading the jungle against the man's village as in the book, so maybe it's worth watching for that...

Somewhere in North America, at some point in the Pleistocene. From its elevated lair, a cave lioness- a descendant of a recent wave of Asiatic immigrants- watches two sabertooth tigers as they harass a mighty mammoth. Separated from her pride, she has taken a huge step for her species by accepting a jaguar as her mate, and producing the first hybrid cubs between the two- the first on a long line that will combine the lion and the jaguar's best traits and adapt perfectly to the new continent, conquering it almost completely and succesfully competing with other superpredators.

Doodle inspired by the long debate on whether Panthera atrox, the so called American lion, was really a lion or a gigantic jaguar, for its remains have traits of both. At least one case of actual hybrids between lion and jaguar is known, so who knows? Maybe Panthera atrox was both after all...

The trailer is out for Andy Serkis' "darker, grittier" version of The Jungle Book. I really love the original book as you all know (I even wrote my own jungle adventure trilogy heavily inspired by Kipling's novel), so of course I'm going to check any adaptation of it but... this looks weird, honestly.

The movie does look like it'll be referencing the original novel more, BUT there's one thing that bothers me and that's how weird all the animals look.

You'd expect them to look super realistic for a darker story, but instead they look more cartoonish than the ones from Disney's 2016 version. They also look oddly humanoid. For example, here's who I suppose is Akela, looking like an anthro character:

Compare to Disney's 2016 version:

I'm all for giving your characters a unique, distinct style but I fear the humanoid appearance of the characters will be too distracting; we all know what a wolf looks like after all. The 2016 Akela looks like a real wolf even though he speaks and emotes; the new one.... not so much.

Here's another example; Shere Khan.

(It looks even weirder in motion, especially the "how you've grown" scene. Like a sort of evil Tigger X Tai Lung from Kung Fu Panda). Again, the face is too humanoid, I feel.

Now, I'm probably biased here because I just love tigers and I believe a perfectly normal tiger can be really scary the way it is, no need to add anything. Take the CGI tiger from Life of Pi; it worked so well because it stuck to what a tiger looks and acts like; the face was a tiger's face, the expressions were a tiger's expressions, and the result was still scary when it needed to be because tigers ARE scary.

The 2016 version of Shere Khan was ok, although I feel he would've been scarier without the scarring and the bad eye. At times I felt like there was too much going on with his face.

Still, he looked a lot better and more tiger-like than the newer version. It is also proof that you can make a tiger speak and emote and still look like a tiger.

The biggest sin, for me, is when the filmmakers fail to make a CGI animal as scary as the real life counterpart. Here's a shot of Shere Khan pawing furiously at some fire (because you can´t have a Jungle Book adaptation without that happening ).

Again, the face of the tiger in the trailer looks all kinds of strange. Like a man wearing tiger makeup and prosthetic fangs. Or a transition frame from a man to tiger transformation sequence.

Notice how small the fangs are proportionally? Now compare to the real tiger who played Shere Khan in Stephen Sommer's 1994 live action version:

That's right; tigers have HUGE fangs! I just can´t understand why a filmmaker would choose to give his tiger smaller fangs than the real thing. And it's not only the tiger; Bagheera too has very small fangs in this trailer:

Compare to 2016 Bagheera:

Or a real panther for that matter:

I don´t have a fang fetish, I swear!!

I just think if you have a badass animal in your movie, like a panther or a tiger, the least you can do is make them look as scary as the real thing!

The other animals we don´t get much footage of but Baloo sort of looks like a werebear:

(still better than Beorn from the Hobbit movies, tho; that was dissapointing).

The monkeys look like absolutely no species of monkey ever, and some of them look like zombies. Or Gollum.

But at least Hathi looks good (if a little prehistoric, even mammoth-ish. Still, he's supposed to be the oldest, wisest animal in the Jungle, after Kaa, so ok I guess)

Speaking of Kaa, tho... I think she looks like an evil ninja turtle.

Compare to the 2016 version, which certainly did not look like an adult Indian python (and I'm not talking about just the size of it), but at least looked like a snake:

So yeah... I'm not sure about this movie. I think the animals are the most important thing in any Jungle Book adaptation, so the fact that they don´t look very good doesn´t bode well for this one. On the other hand, it may be that we see Mowgli leading the jungle against the man's village as in the book, so maybe it's worth watching for that...

I need to know first are they free or do you charge? I ask because I'm currently saving up for something else so whether I ask for a commission now or ask for one at a later time depends on whether or not there is a price and how much it is.